[Discussion]N&P Cleanup

[Surlethe]

It's been mentioned in the Schuyler Colfax dogpile discussion thread that we might want to start a discussion about the current state of N&P. So, here's the thread for that!

To kick the discussion off, I think that the Mods should consider clamping way the fuck down on me-tooing and vacant one-liners. There are entirely too many of those floating around. It feels like it's gotten to the point where, if a thread interests me and I want to read it, I can count on having to skim past about twice as many spammy posts as there are informative, thought-through posts.

Discuss away, my fellow Senators!

[Broomstick]

I agree, N&P needs a clean up. This will, unfortunately, require more effort from the moderators but the result will be a better forum.

I suggest that, in addition to cleaning up "me-too" and other spamlike crud, that there be more assertive moving of stuff to either other, more appropriate areas, including HoS where appropriate.

Finally - people, look in the fucking mirror. YOU are part of the problem. It's not the moderator's fault that bullshit is getting posted, it's YOURS. And I don't exclude myself from that, as I am far from perfect and I have also engaged in crap posting. After my most recent couple of dust-ups I withdrew from a couple threads and I'm trying to be more reasonable in what I put here. If everyone exerted a little effort the result would be a much better signal-to-noise ratio here.

[RedImperator]

This has been a long time coming.

I think there's pretty widespread agreement that N&P has gone to shit. With the US elections coming up in just a few months, it's high time that forum gets fixed. The mods have made one attempt already to do it by brute force; unfortunately, it seems to have petered out without much success. So now I think it's time the Senate took a crack at the issue. What's wrong with News and Politics, and how should we fix it?

Now, I have a pretty good feeling that before too long, someone is going to come into this thread and say "The reason N&P is broken is Person X". Furthermore, I think "Person X" is as likely as not to be a Senator. When that moment happens, this thread stands a pretty good chance of blowing up. The best I can do is ask everyone to stay cool and lay off the flames for as long as they can. I usually resent heavy moderation in this forum, but maybe that's necessary this time around; perhaps by an administrator whose alterego isn't a regular N&P contributor, since the chancellor is absent. Or hell, give our esteemed Whip moderator powers over this forum temporarily, since I think all of us trust and respect Wilkens's judgment.

Now, with that behind us, I'd like to offer one (hopefully) non-controversial proposal to start. I think we should tighten the definition of "news" to "news which is relevant to current events and politics". Specifically, I'd like to send "true crime", especially outrageous true crime, out of N&P (back to OT seems the best place for it). The reason being is that most crime stories, especially ones involving child abuse, almost never provide useful discussion. Instead, they get a bunch of people angry, who all post about how angry they are, and the result is a thread full of +1 posts. The "RARGH HORRIBLE PUNISHMENT" posts seem to have dried up thanks to a sustained crackdown, but nevertheless, news stories about something awful happening to children don't provoke discussion, just noise. And reducing the noise in N&P should be an important goal.

Now, my second idea, which may be more controversial. I think N&P needs new moderators. This is nothing against the mods already there. But out of the four mods there, two are too busy in real life to babysit a web forum and two are regularly involved in N&P threads that may well need moderating. I would suggest assigning four new mods to the forum--either existing mods and supermods, new mods, or some combination of both. I would further suggest that these moderators not be regular N&P participants (ruling out myself), because bluntly, in the state N&P is in, virtually every regular participant there probably has a list of people who can't stand his or her guts. Furthermore, making regular participants into mods invites a situation where a thread is getting out of control and the only available moderator is right in the thick of it, unable to make a clear judgment.

The final suggestion I'll make for now is this: give the N&P moderators the right to kick people out of N&P. I don't want to bog down this post with a bunch of details, but the basic idea would be that if the N&P mods decide someone is too spammy or too immature for the forum (based on a clear history of making worthless posts), that person is barred from posting in N&P. There's no easy software implementation for that that I know of, so the best I could think of would be to force such people to put "Barred from N&P on [date]" somewhere in their sigs, with any posts made in N&P after that date subject to summary deletion (and that poster possibly subject to more punishment, either directly from an admin or from this body; I'd lean towards directly from an admin). Naturally, we'd have to be very careful with this one, because I can guarantee there will be a chorus demanding certain controversial posters be barred immediately (their names rhyme with "Hep" and "Shelfdart"). I would limit use of this power to people who post spam, filler, +1, and the like. For things like "flamebaiting", "trolling", or other accusations likely to be leveled at those who post unpopular content or in an unpopular manner, I would want this power either not used at all, or only used if the full Senate agrees.

These are my first three ideas. I welcome comments on them, and any ideas others might have.

[RedImperator]

Whoops. Well, there are two of these now. I'll go ahead and merge them.

EDIT: Weird. Surlethe's is the first post in the thread, but my name is listed as the thread starter. Can you tell I don't have much experience with the merge button?

[Coyote]

I agree with Red Imp's assessment and general solutions. Particularly, the one about grisly crime/child & animal abuse-- I mean, seriously, is there really someone who's going to rise up and say "oh, I dunno, I think child abuse/setting fire to puppies/incest dungeons are misunderstood and get a bum rap"? We already know this kind of stuff is indefensible.

As for temp-banning someone from N&P, we can salve that with a simple sticky thread: a Roster of those booted from N&P. A simple list, like this:

"Cundellini Q. Pigweed: 60 days ban; effective date: 10 June 2008. Ban Lifts: 10 August 2008"

One of the duties the new moderator can be in charge of is checking that sticky on a daily basis to make sure it stays updated.

I'd be willing to do it; while I do post in N&P I don't post as often as I used to, and I'm not as personally involved as I used to be, having learned long ago when to step back from some subjects.

[Broomstick]

I had a request from the masses:

Blogs aren't news and often they get posted in the guise of news for amusement.

N&P in my opinion has been more about making fun of stupid right wingers than about informing people of interesting news for the last year or so. It used to be an interesting place to get some quick news and some intelligent discussion.

Limiting linked stories to reputable news outlets only (BBC, MSNBC, CNN, Reuters and non-tabloid papers) would probably go along way to improving N&P as a source of news discussion.

I agree with him - blogs aren't news, rightwingers have been known to be idiots so long that it's no longer news, and N&P is not what it used to be.

I realize that people in other countries have some interest in what happens in the US, but my opinion (mine) is that number of political threads is too high, there has to be more happening in the world than the US political circus, even in an election year.

Do we want to limit N&P solely to "reputable" news sources? Is this the issue? A lot of the child abuse/animal torture/etc. threads do start with articles from "reputable" outlets, so I'm not sure that's the problem here, but it is certainly worth discussing.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I agree that N&P needs new, and more moderators. It is the most active "serious" forum we have on the board, with nearly twice the topics, and 100k more posts than Other Sci-fi, or Gaming and Computers (which I somewhat hesitate to call a "serious" forum,) and they should be people of low B.S. tolerance who don't regularly engage in the fights and flamefests which have come to represent N&P. Also, I agree with the notion that some of the stuff that gets posted to the forum would be better off in Off-Topic. Especially the "true crime" stories. There are also an awful lot of topics which either contain news only by sheer accident or, instead of quoting legitimate news articles, they quote analysis straight from the tinfoil-hat continent of the 'blog-o-sphere.'

On the subject of barring people from N&P, it's arguable that if they're too spammy and immature to participate in that forum, then perhaps they should be titled, temp-banned, or perma-banned from the board in general instead of just being barred from N&P. If they're being spammy fucks in N&P, then it's likely that their general signal-to-noise ratio wasn't that high to begin with.

It seems to me that much of the problem with the forum is that it seems to be held to a much lower standard than, say, SLAM, or one of the Sci-Fi/Fantasy forums, even though discussion and debate regarding news and politics can be quantified with empirical evidence just as hard as any sci-fi versus debate, or science and morality discussion.

[Coyote]

It seems to me that much of the problem with the forum is that it seems to be held to a much lower standard than, say, SLAM, or one of the Sci-Fi/Fantasy forums, even though discussion and debate regarding news and politics can be quantified with empirical evidence just as hard as any sci-fi versus debate, or science and morality discussion.

I'd argue that the reason it isn't taken as seriously is, potentially, because the "news" getting posted is leaning more towards tabloid-style articles & commentary-- lurid tales of titillation and ghastliness, rather than, well, news.

A general clean-up and tightening of standards might, indeed, make it more of a high-standard forums.

It's potentially a very valuable resource: we have posters from all over the world, monitoring situations 24 hours, and posting news of events from many different viewpoints. I'd hate to think what would happen if my only news sources for unfolding events was from the US media.

Limiting posts to "reputable" news sources is an idea; I'd be willing to allow blogosphere posts if they do focus on an actual event, or news situation, rather than just some schmoe's ravings.

[RedImperator]

There are two issues with the blogs. The first is the Einhander Special, when some tinfoil hat fruitcake's ramblings get posted as news. The second is when someone posts an opinion from a blog. I think the two should be treated separately. I think it's a no-brainer to ban all "news" that can't be verified, but what about opinions? There are many (far, far too many) opinion writers in reputable newspapers whose opinions are total junk, and many bloggers whose opinions are well-reasoned and insightful. It would be foolish to allow William Kristol because his drivel is published by the New York Times while disallowing a James Wolcott piece published in his blog.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

It seems to me that much of the problem with the forum is that it seems to be held to a much lower standard than, say, SLAM, or one of the Sci-Fi/Fantasy forums, even though discussion and debate regarding news and politics can be quantified with empirical evidence just as hard as any sci-fi versus debate, or science and morality discussion.

I'd argue that the reason it isn't taken as seriously is, potentially, because the "news" getting posted is leaning more towards tabloid-style articles & commentary-- lurid tales of titillation and ghastliness, rather than, well, news.

A general clean-up and tightening of standards might, indeed, make it more of a high-standard forums.

A sticky containing general guidelines regarding what would make for a good topic, versus what would be better off in Off-Topic might be in order. Sure, people don't read stickies, but if they get enough of their threads locked with a link to it, they might start paying attention.

Limiting posts to "reputable" news sources is an idea; I'd be willing to allow blogosphere posts if they do focus on an actual event, or news situation, rather than just some schmoe's ravings.

I would limit the quoting of blogs to the discussion of a news article or political event, and even then, I tend to be of the thought that it should only be done if the original source can't be Googled, and that blogs should be acknowledged as having about the credibility and weight of a Wikipedia article.

[Edi]

As far as N&P goes, I like most of Red's suggestions. Where new mods are concerned, even though I'm a regular poster, I could take one of those mod positions. My posting is far less than it used to be at one point and I generally only read most threads. Especially if the cleanup moderation is going to involve just HoSing spam threads or summarily deleting spam, I'll be more than willing to do that. I also happen to be online a lot because I have a helldesk job which often allows me to browse the forums online at work if things are slow, which they are whenever they assign me to troubleshooting duty.

I'm not going to even consider moderating any threads that concern subjects known to push my buttons (e.g. Russia).

The downside with making non-N&P regulars mods of the forum is that if they aren't regulars there, they're not likely to have inclination to read the forum and keep an eye on it as much as they perhaps should.

[Coyote]

There are two issues with the blogs. The first is the Einhander Special, when some tinfoil hat fruitcake's ramblings get posted as news. The second is when someone posts an opinion from a blog. I think the two should be treated separately. I think it's a no-brainer to ban all "news" that can't be verified, but what about opinions?

Hmmm... it would be cool if we could have an "Editorial" section, like a sub-forum, or encourage people starting new topics to do what we do here and put [Editorial] in their thread title... a whole Editorial sub-forum might be a little to formal, and the title header difficult to enforce (and may even be an argument starter: "this is an editorial! You should have posted it as an editorial! Fucktard %$#@$").

But then, a Moderator would be able to go in and change a thread title to include [Editorial], eh?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

There are two issues with the blogs. The first is the Einhander Special, when some tinfoil hat fruitcake's ramblings get posted as news. The second is when someone posts an opinion from a blog. I think the two should be treated separately. I think it's a no-brainer to ban all "news" that can't be verified, but what about opinions?

Hmmm... it would be cool if we could have an "Editorial" section, like a sub-forum, or encourage people starting new topics to do what we do here and put [Editorial] in their thread title... a whole Editorial sub-forum might be a little to formal, and the title header difficult to enforce (and may even be an argument starter: "this is an editorial! You should have posted it as an editorial! Fucktard %$#@$").

But then, a Moderator would be able to go in and change a thread title to include [Editorial], eh?

We need another sub-forum like we need to give Shep control of live nuclear ordinance. A rule to clearly mark Op/Ed posts as such would be good, though. Or such things could be restricted to Off-Topic, and if they acquire traits of a serious current events discussion, could be moved to N&P.

[RedImperator]

On the subject of barring people from N&P, it's arguable that if they're too spammy and immature to participate in that forum, then perhaps they should be titled, temp-banned, or perma-banned from the board in general instead of just being barred from N&P. If they're being spammy fucks in N&P, then it's likely that their general signal-to-noise ratio wasn't that high to begin with.

I might have to disagree on this. I've seen posters who stink up N&P turn around and make good contributions elsewhere. Besides that, you're talking about a lot of bannings, on the order of a purge, and 1) that's a policy change that goes well beyond reforming N&P, 2) I don't think there are the votes in the Senate or the mod forum to make it happen, and 3) I doubt Mike will go along with it, or else it would have happened already. Booting people out of N&P is much more doable and a good intermediate step.

It seems to me that much of the problem with the forum is that it seems to be held to a much lower standard than, say, SLAM, or one of the Sci-Fi/Fantasy forums, even though discussion and debate regarding news and politics can be quantified with empirical evidence just as hard as any sci-fi versus debate, or science and morality discussion.

This strikes right at the heart of the problem. Everywhere else on the board, you're supposed to be able to back up your opinion with facts and reasoning. For some reason, it has become acceptable in N&P to simply state your opinion, full stop. If everyone in N&P knew they were expected to back up their opinion, the spam would evaporate and maybe some of the flamewars would be averted.

Hmmm... it would be cool if we could have an "Editorial" section, like a sub-forum, or encourage people starting new topics to do what we do here and put [Editorial] in their thread title... a whole Editorial sub-forum might be a little to formal, and the title header difficult to enforce (and may even be an argument starter: "this is an editorial! You should have posted it as an editorial! Fucktard %$#@$").

But then, a Moderator would be able to go in and change a thread title to include [Editorial], eh?

I think this is an excellent idea, simple and easy to understand. As for the problem of backseat moderating, that can be dealt with by properly thwacking the backseat moderators.

[Simplicius]

I stopped posting in N&P once I stopped being directly involved with N&P-worthy material, but I still lurk there daily and see a lot of pointless chatter.

Politics is one of those subjects that lends itself to the opinionated, and since it's an 'everyman' subject - science and art are not water-cooler subjects, except in particular offices - a lot of people are going to feel a need to state their opinions, even when they aren't useful opinions. It's politics, they want to make themselves heard, etc.

I don't know a hell of a lot about forum modding, but I wonder if issuing on-the-spot rebukes to anyone posting vacuous one-line/+1 opinions would encourage N&P posters to think before they post, as they seem to be doing much more often in other serious forums.

Obviously the need for more heavy moderating will not go away, and repeat offenders should be chucked out of the forum for a while. But it might train those posters who don't put any more thought into their posts than, e.g., "I don't like McCain, no-one else here seems to, so I guess I can say 'I don't like McCain!' all the time and it's totally okay." New/extra mods would make it easier to issue warnings for those kinds of posts, so I thought I'd mention this while that possibility is being tossed around.

[Edi]

I don't know a hell of a lot about forum modding, but I wonder if issuing on-the-spot rebukes to anyone posting vacuous one-line/+1 opinions would encourage N&P posters to think before they post, as they seem to be doing much more often in other serious forums.

The mods have been doing that for years and it has had almost zero effect unless it has involved absolutely vitriolic flaming repeatedly within a short period of time and even then the effect has been very temporary. The only thing that works to cut down on the spam there is constant, heavy-handed, iron-fisted oppression.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

On the subject of barring people from N&P, it's arguable that if they're too spammy and immature to participate in that forum, then perhaps they should be titled, temp-banned, or perma-banned from the board in general instead of just being barred from N&P. If they're being spammy fucks in N&P, then it's likely that their general signal-to-noise ratio wasn't that high to begin with.

I might have to disagree on this. I've seen posters who stink up N&P turn around and make good contributions elsewhere. Besides that, you're talking about a lot of bannings, on the order of a purge, and 1) that's a policy change that goes well beyond reforming N&P, 2) I don't think there are the votes in the Senate or the mod forum to make it happen, and 3) I doubt Mike will go along with it, or else it would have happened already. Booting people out of N&P is much more doable and a good intermediate step.

Titling and temp-bans could be made to work. Someone who's made a stink in N&P could be, temporarily assigned a title like "Doesn't Play Well With Others" and for folk who make a real stink in N&P could be given a temp-ban lasting a couple of days. Just enough time to cool off.

Though, upon more thought, I'm not quite sure restricting someone from News and Politics should be difficult, from a board software perspective. After all, as a Senator, I have the "Can Edit Posts" privilege flag set, and have the ability to make posts here. I also have posting privileges in a number of private forums. It seems to me that it should be trivial for an admin to find a given user and remove their ability to access N&P. Anyone who knows better is welcome to correct my understanding on this.

[Edi]

On the subject of barring people from N&P, it's arguable that if they're too spammy and immature to participate in that forum, then perhaps they should be titled, temp-banned, or perma-banned from the board in general instead of just being barred from N&P. If they're being spammy fucks in N&P, then it's likely that their general signal-to-noise ratio wasn't that high to begin with.

I might have to disagree on this. I've seen posters who stink up N&P turn around and make good contributions elsewhere. Besides that, you're talking about a lot of bannings, on the order of a purge, and 1) that's a policy change that goes well beyond reforming N&P, 2) I don't think there are the votes in the Senate or the mod forum to make it happen, and 3) I doubt Mike will go along with it, or else it would have happened already. Booting people out of N&P is much more doable and a good intermediate step.

Titling and temp-bans could be made to work. Someone who's made a stink in N&P could be, temporarily assigned a title like "Doesn't Play Well With Others" and for folk who make a real stink in N&P could be given a temp-ban lasting a couple of days. Just enough time to cool off.

Though, upon more thought, I'm not quite sure restricting someone from News and Politics should be difficult, from a board software perspective. After all, as a Senator, I have the "Can Edit Posts" privilege flag set, and have the ability to make posts here. I also have posting privileges in a number of private forums. It seems to me that it should be trivial for an admin to find a given user and remove their ability to access N&P. Anyone who knows better is welcome to correct my understanding on this.

That's because each of those forums is assigned to a specific user group and all others denied access. For N&P, it would require a specific user group of "Banned from N&P" and the offenders put there, if it is possible to do it in the first place. Otehrwise it requires the reverse, a user grop for "Allowed to N&P" and offenders removed. Way too much work.

[Surlethe]

Requiring people to mark editorials/analysis is an excellent idea. It will nominally stop people from misrepresenting opinion columns or blogs as "news", and it will still keep the "Politics" in N&P. I also like the idea of keeping the news posted relevant to the political, economic, and social situation of a country. That means thriller tabloid-style crimes ("He gutted eighty-five people, ate their livers, and buried them in a twenty-five-mile-long tunnel system under his neighborhood!") stay out, while economic news ("The US GDP grew 3.3% last quarter!") stays in. I can think of some crimes, like the DC snipers, which would be marginal - as thrilling crimes, they should stay out of N&P, but as they impacted the social environment around DC, they should be considered valid news.

Also, a member PMed me:

My two cents; use it however you like

People have referenced vendettas, poor debating, sniping; there was a reference to J/Aerius gloom and doom posts (not sure if they were critical of J/Aerius or those criticizing those criticizing them), and there have been calls for new moderators.

It might be helpful if folks cited specific examples of the behavior they found unacceptable in N&P. I think we all know about Einhander's tinfoilhat threads, and I fully agree with crime/child abuse threads being non-conducive to debate, but other than these glaring examples of things that don't belong in N&P, what are the Senators/Mods/Admins critical of?

I know RedImperator asked to keep the flaming out of your discussion, but without specific examples you're talking in such a general sense that I wonder if you're all even discussing the same behavior, people, or threads.

[Lagmonster]

Sounds to me like the simplest solution would be to clearly define what is and isn't acceptable topics to post in N&P, then authoritatively excavate everything else to OT.

As for individuals who run roughshod IN N&P threads, that can, as has always been the case, dealt with on a person-by-person basis by moderation.

As an aside, I'd encourage a lessening if not outright quashing of the posting of horror- or comedy-for-its-own-sake news articles in N&P. That's OT fluff, just like articles on scientific/medical advancements often end up in SLAM.

[The Yosemite Bear]

hey, one liners are my specialty....


though I usually do it to inject some humour into the situation.

and I don't usually insert a million emoticons to give someone's computer a siezure, I figure that anyone who knows my posting patterns will know that I will take the satire approch for the most part. ok, satire and vague historical refrences, even seratonin inhibitors can't seem to kill that part of my modus operendi.

[Knife]

I for one would whole heartedly like to see a policy of labeling thread titles with a [editorial] prefix. As much as I'd like to see blog crap and tinfoil shit out of NP, I think it would be fairly hard since blogs range from credible to crap depending on what it is about and who writes it. So a prefix would go along way in letting potential readers know what they're getting into and making these threads highlighted for mods.

I'd also like to second the notion of new mod staff for N&P. I don't want to be one at all, but I think some fresh blood and perhaps an aggressive bent would be a healthy thing.

As far as any sort of banning or temp bans or even titles, I think that's fairly unrealistic unless an individual goes through normal channels for such punishments. If they act like a troll or asshat in N&P or any other forum, they're subject to the discipline of the board and it's various apparatuses to punish such behavior.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Is there any way that, like some other boards I've been to, we can set a requirement into the board software for posts to be of a certain length? We could for instance dictate that a post with less than 100 characters (and spaces and links don't count) cannot be posted with such software. This would improve the quality of the board enormously right there, by forcing people to at least string a coherent sentence together.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Also, I have a question.

What is the ratio of moderators to posts per day, and what was the ratio of moderators to posts per day back in, say, 2003 or 2004?


Could it be that there simply aren't enough moderators to handle a board with this much traffic and that more need to be provided?

[Pablo Sanchez]

I agree that N&P needs new, and more moderators. It is the most active "serious" forum we have on the board, with nearly twice the topics, and 100k more posts than Other Sci-fi, or Gaming and Computers (which I somewhat hesitate to call a "serious" forum,) and they should be people of low B.S. tolerance who don't regularly engage in the fights and flamefests which have come to represent N&P.

I think part of the issue with N&P now comes from the fact that its dedicated moderators are less active than they used to be, so it probably is time to put together a shortlist of new mods.